BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 23/06/2011
Date of Order : 19/10/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 332/2011
Between
Stanley Paiva, | :: | Complainant |
Nedumparambil House, Near Saudi School, Mundamveli. P.O., Cochin – 7. |
| (By party-in-person) |
And
1. Assistant Engineer, | :: | Opposite parties |
Electrical Section, K.S.E.B., Fort Kochi. 2. George, Meter Reader, K.S.E.B., Fort Kochi, Cochin – 1. 3. Adv. Xavier. T.O., Edassery Building, 1st floor, High Court, Banerji Road, Cochin – 31, Ernakulam. |
| (Op.pty 1 absent)
(Op.pts. 2 & 3 deleted from the party array) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The short facts leading to the complaint are the following :
The complainant was issued a bill for Rs. 3,553/- as electricity charges. Later, he was asked to remit the charges in 5 instalments. But he could remit only three of them due to some intervening incidents. Anyhow, when he was reminded to pay the balance amount Rs. 1,420/- he complied with it by sending Rs. 1,504/- including surcharge on 11-02-2011. But to his surprise, he was again asked to pay Rs. 1,420/- as arrears over the same period. Hence he is before us with this complaint to get relieved from paying the said amount and claiming Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for the hardships undergone by him.
2. No version filed by the opposite party.
3. No oral evidence for the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have been deleted from the party array. The 1st opposite party was called absent. Complainant was heard.
4. The short points for determination are :-
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the disputed amount?
Is there any other reliefs allowable?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- The complaint raises the short issue whether he is liable to remit the disputed amount of Rs. 1,420/- as claimed in Ext. A1 letter. In the same communication, he was also asked to pay Rs. 84/- additionally may be as surcharge towards unsettled charges pending outstanding against the complainant for the month of 9/2004 and 12/2004. As it is well known, the demand made in 2011 demanding to pay arrears of electricity charges over the period of 2004 is clearly barred by limitation as prescribed by the Kerala Electricity Act 2003 which has set out 2 years as the dead line to collect electricity charges unless the demand has been made continuously. Moreover, the 1st opposite party had been directed to take appropriate action within 3 months by the Hon'ble High Court in its order on 28-08-2008 in W.P. (C) No. 27786. Still there is nothing on record to show that the 1st opposite party has been continuously demanding the sum. In that view of the matter, we are constrained to quash Exts. A1 and A3 demand letters forwarded to the complainant. But the complainant has produced material evidence in the form of Ext. A2 receipt signed by the 1st opposite party to show that the 1st opposite party has received Rs. 1,504/- from the complainant sent by money order. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to the complaint, we refrain from allowing any other reliefs.
6. In short, we allow the complaint and direct that Exts. A1 and A3 communications demanding payment of charges stand quashed.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 19th day of October 2011.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | A copy of the letter issued by the op.pty |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the acknowledgment card |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 13-06-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
